Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 21685 times)
citro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« on: April 15, 2013, 01:55:49 AM »
ReplyReply

This morning I got a glimpse of a TechCrunch article (now misssing) about LR5 beta.
The link: http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/14/adobe-introduces-lightroom-5-public-beta-with-new-features-for-enthusiasts-and-pros-alike/

The page was indexed (but not cached) by major search engines.

The article is still here: http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read?GUID=23926548

Quote
Adobe’s Lightroom is probably the best software available when it comes to a photographer’s digital darkroom needs. The company has been putting lots of time and effort into building it into something that appeals to both pros and enthusiasts, and now it’s releasing Lightroom 5 beta, representing the fastest turnaround for a major point release in the app’s history.

One big change is the new flexibility of the spot removal tool. Now people can change the shape of the spot removal brush, so that it isn’t just a circle. You can make it person-shaped, for instance, to get rid of a someone with a single digital brushstroke. It’s now fully customizable, so you can change it to whatever shape best suits your needs for the actual composition you’re working on. Adobe Digital Imaging Product Manager Sharad Mangalick explained in an interview that this was among the top-requested features from users, and from the team itself.

The algorithm underlying the spot removal tool itself has also been completely redesigned, making it much better at matching than has been possible at the past for taking out large chunks of the scenery and replacing them with seamless background. The change is both fast and non-destructive. In a demo, it worked extremely well about taking out a person in the foreground without any noticeable detrimental effects.

Other great new features include the spot highlighting tool, which points out dust and specks in stark relief, making them much easier to zap with the spot removal tool so they won’t show up and ruin large-scale prints. There’s also a great new engine for selectively highlighting certain parts of an image, which makes it much easier to give focus to a composition that otherwise might not have any one place that draws the eye, with varying degrees of impact. And there’s a new tool called upright that automatically corrects distortion and horizon skewing, which can instantly transform an image from unusable to attractive in a single click.

Images can now be edited in a preview mode that doesn’t actually require the files to be physically present on the working drive. Any changes made by an editor are automatically backed up to the preview version, and then applied to the original when it’s present, which is great for photographers who store most of their library on external disks.

Adobe Lightroom 5 beta is available as a free public beta for anyone to try, regardless of whether you’ve ever used an Adobe product before, and it will remain free and fully functional until Adobe releases a full retail version of the program later this year. Requires Windows 7 or Windows 8 on PC, or Lion and Mountain Lion on Mac, and supports HiDPI (0r Retina display resolution) on both.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2013, 02:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks plausible, so I guess we don't have too long to wait.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2013, 02:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

"There’s also a great new engine for selectively highlighting certain parts of an image, which makes it much easier to give focus to a composition that otherwise might not have any one place that draws the eye, with varying degrees of impact."

?? That sounds like something that needs a better description.

"which can instantly transform an image from unusable to attractive in a single click."

<shudder>
Logged
citro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2013, 02:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Instagram ?  Grin
Logged
elied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2013, 04:28:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like it might be something similar to Nik U-points.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6731


« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2013, 04:36:13 AM »
ReplyReply

…The page was indexed (but not cached) by major search engines.

It's here (the article): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/14/adobe-introduces-lightroom-5-public-beta-with-new-features-for-enthusiasts-and-pros-alike/
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 05:03:40 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2013, 08:09:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I like being able to change the shape on the spot tool.  I also hope the process has been sped up some.  That's one of the few areas I notice Lr getting a little slow in operation.    If indeed they have come up with something similar to Nik's Upoint, that will be another large plus.
Logged

ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2013, 09:01:55 AM »
ReplyReply

> One big change is the new flexibility of the spot removal tool.

This has been a major headache for me in otherwise powerful all-in-one app. Only that feature alone makes me want to buy it.
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2013, 09:08:31 AM »
ReplyReply

P.S. as for the spot highlighting tool I suppose it would be easily possible to remove the bottom left reflected white spots in the sea in the following example (some nasty ones already removed one-by-one):

Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2013, 09:16:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I hope they improved the text annotation for printing....

...and whatever other goodies will entice people :-)

John
Logged

John
Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2013, 09:28:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't see the date that the article was written. Might it have been April 1st?

Cya,
JJ
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2013, 09:42:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't see the date that the article was written. Might it have been April 1st?

Cya,
JJ

Posted on April 15

Timing is shorter than prior cycles, but not unreasonable.  Plus new function drives user interest and keeps competition at bay....and is god for us.
Logged

John
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2013, 10:22:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't really seem anything but fluff. Doesn't seem anything to really warrant a full upgrade except of course that now you will have to buy it to get compatibility for newer cameras.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2013, 10:43:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't seem anything to really warrant a full upgrade except of course that now you will have to buy it to get compatibility for newer cameras.

Why would that be true (you have to buy it for new cameras)? An update of new cameras would imply an update to the DNG converter too, then there's no forcing an upgrade for newer cameras.

Sure would be nice if the camera makers would just release the same darn raw format instead of forcing us (and Adobe + others) to have to update their software. As an example, a new camera system's open JPEG format is never an issue.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2013, 12:54:45 PM »
ReplyReply

However the situation at present and no doubt for the future is that DNG has not taken the world by storm, has not been adapted by the camera manufacturers and if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2013, 01:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

However the situation at present and no doubt for the future is that DNG has not taken the world by storm, has not been adapted by the camera manufacturers and if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.

As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format, I'm not sure how this is Adobe's issue or fault. They do provide a 'fix' for this which is free but does cause YOU to have to convert the data. That's more than Canon and Nikon are doing for the customer so I always find it odd that Adobe is the bad child here.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2013, 01:12:29 PM »
ReplyReply

As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format, I'm not sure how this is Adobe's issue or fault. They do provide a 'fix' for this which is free but does cause YOU to have to convert the data. That's more than Canon and Nikon are doing for the customer so I always find it odd that Adobe is the bad child here.

Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2013, 01:17:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.

I don't want to use that software. EVERY 3rd party product that can handle the raw data falls into the same trap as Adobe, yet Adobe has provided a free way to over come this. Yet they (and DNG) are the bad guys.

Every new camera that ships also spits out a JPEG which every copy of Photoshop I've ever owned (going back to 1.0.7) can open. As well as many other products. Yet I'm penalized by Canon (and Nikon) if I buy their new camera and want to shoot raw and use anyone else software. Why?  Why is Adobe the bad company in this scenario?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2013, 01:20:05 PM »
ReplyReply

This is kind of a ying/yang issue.

I understand why the camera manufacturers are not moving to DNG.  However, we must also understand why Adobe does not want to continue to support older releases of their software.  Pretty much, both points revolve around financial, rather than technical, issues.

I want Adobe to continue to enhance Lightroom.  To do that, they need a business case to justify the development (and associated) costs.  Part of that business case needs to include the upgrade pricing and market assessment of acceptance, which includes a price vs volume analysis.  I am sure that a similar analysis resulted in the LR4 release having significantly lower initial and upgrade pricing.

I would like this enhanced function sooner, rather than later....and am willing to pay the (reasonable) cost of an upgrade.  Others may decide to hold off if they have no need for the new function and do not have a new camera needing support.  For those with new cameras, Adobe is nice enough to provide an alternate means, DNG, for support.  Each person can make their individual choice of cost or effort to support their needs.

John
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 01:21:45 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2013, 01:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

This is kind of a ying/yang issue.
I understand why the camera manufacturers are not moving to DNG.

Why should they? Until there's enough customer pressure to provide an open raw file, technically easy to do for them, they have no motive.

As long as photographers and people who buy such products question DNG, or more appropriately, question the silliness of what the camera manufacturers are doing and make a stink, nothing will change. If people would put as much effort in slamming proprietary raws as they do DNG (for whatever reason), change may come about. I just can't understand the logic behind Adobe being at fault here. They didn't create the proprietary raws but they do have to hack em like everyone else to access the data that belongs to us.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad